Oftentimes people wonder what the difference is between HR searching for candidates and recruiters.
Simple. Selling.
HR spends enormous sums of money on passive recruiting techniques: job sites, corporate websites: internal postings: all of which only appeal to Active Candidates: mostly the unemployed or soon to be unemployed or On Their Way Out of their Company for various reasons.
Nothing especially wrong with that: but the facts are this represents only about 8% of the entire workforce at any given time and in retail: even less.
HRs have a strange aversion to hiring the unemployed: We don't want anyone someone else didn't want no matter what the reason.
As the retail workforce continues to shrink in availability: this attitude will have to change. The recession dumped lots of very qualified people on the market a few years ago but the assumption is they kept the best workers.
Not so: more often they kept the "cheapest" workers to contain payroll costs.
So now its time to top up again. You can bet these Active searchers will indeed find a percentage of these posted roles: if HR will even look at them.
Recruiters therefore don't have a lot of motivation to promote Active job seekers: companies don't pay for what they believe they can obtain themselves.
They get paid to find Passive candidates: those that are reasonably happy at jobs they already have.
Or: the other 92% of the workforce.
Next to none of these workers ever check out a job site of any kind.
(Well let's face it: the 'drop' rate (completing the application process) is huge for online job postings regardless of being an Active seeker or not: something 90%+.)
Corporate jobsites fare only slightly better: around 17% completion.
Why? Mainly because it's so time consuming, confusing and unrewarding. Ever try to go through a Taleo based application? Wow: nightmare of frustration.
At the end of such a process: a candidate is lucky to recieve: Due to the High Volume of Applicants you will ONLY hear from us if..........If you Won the Jobsite Lottery!
Candidates know the success rate for applying online is around 1 in 200-300 chances to be hired.
Candidates know that online applications are nothing more than a lazy HR department attempting to "not be bothered" with most people: to make their own lives easier by getting candidates to pre-qualify themselves.
Thanks for nothing!
Jobsites are nearly entirely ineffective in recruiting anymore. No one wants to play anymore. It's like finding the Cadbury $250,000 Key in your Chocolate Bar..........How many bars do you have to eat to win?
Jobsites can't Sell the Job or the Firm very effectively.
They are nothing more than laundry lists of
WE NEED:........WE WILL TAKE FROM YOU:
If you are:
The most amazing candidate in the world
Can jump every hurdle we have set to exclude most human beings
Work for some anonymous unstated prize of undetermined value
Then maybeeeeeeeeeeeeee...........we will talk to you.
Convince me to hire you!
Right.
Wrong:
Unless time has warped and it's still the 1940s!
Finding candidates is a courtship process no different than finding customers.
People have to be convinced there is value in considering switching loyalties to your firm.
Recruiters need to have something to SELL about your firm: something special.
Not many people are interested in lateral moves for lateral benefits.
But first of all they have to SELL your firms Brand:
the products as well as the reputation.
There has to be a Value Proposition; a reason to RISK changing companies.
If you are coming to the table with the same old HR processes which are notoriously candidate unfriendly:.....
....and the same old compensation packages: called: Prove you are worth this money
....and the same old 3 month evaulation periods of "we will try you out"
....and the same old vacation packages which you usually lose with a job change
....and the same old sweat shop hours
....and worst of all you are offering a lateral career move
...........then what can a recruiter Sell about you? to entice away a candidate from a job and a company they are basically happy with?
Some companies only call in recruiters when their own miserable processes have failed.
Others use them because they really do care about creating the best possible team.
Whatever the scenario: a recruiter has to find ways to package your firm to appeal to the type of candidates you want.
Yup that's right. We have to Sell YOU......sell your brand to candidates.
Recruiting works in reverse to how HR works:
Mr. Candidate: Sell ME..........on reasons we should hire YOU
HR and Recruiting have the same end goal: but use totally different methods.
HR says Sell Me on You!
Recruiters say Sell You to Them!
HR often thinks: Why do I need a recruiter? Aren't we doing the same thing?
Nope.
Recruiters are salespeople: out there selling your brand across the entire pool of retail candidates.
They get paid to sell. Period.
A CHRP type designation counts for nothing in the sales game.
Well is it any different than hiring our own cheaper recruiters?
Yup.
Your own staff recruiters just can't make the intimate relationships with competitors staff: unless they are ready to quit anyway: and are thus actually Active candidates.
Recruiters develop deep data bases of Passive candidates looking to move when the right Story comes along........things they would never confess to a direct competitor.
In house recruiters are basically an extension of HRs already extensive Active candidate recruitment overhead but still can't touch the Passive pool.
There are only two pools of candidates:
8% Active
92% Passive
There has never been an effective way to reach most Passive candidates other than outside Recruiters.
The stats are:
Job boards: 3.6% .............hire rate
Newsprint: 7% ............. hire rate
Random Apps: 7% .............hire rate
Job Fairs: 8% ..............hire rate
Random Walk Ins: 12% .............hire rate
Staff Refer: 12% ............ .hire rate
Corp Job Sites: 17% ..............hire rate
Recruiters: 56% ...............hire rate
HR continues to spend ridiculous amounts of money on methods that are measurable failures:
with the lowest possible Return on Investment........
If they were in Finance or Marketing: they would be fired for such lousy results.
All the while thinking Recruiters "cost too much".........
The only method that costs too much is one that doesn't work!
When you retain a Recruiter:
You are actually retaining a Top Sales Professional.
The better they are at selling your brand: the better hiring results you will have!
Just that simple.
If you don't have something great to sell and someone to sell your brand to candidates:
You will not get the best talent.
Simple. Selling.
HR spends enormous sums of money on passive recruiting techniques: job sites, corporate websites: internal postings: all of which only appeal to Active Candidates: mostly the unemployed or soon to be unemployed or On Their Way Out of their Company for various reasons.
Nothing especially wrong with that: but the facts are this represents only about 8% of the entire workforce at any given time and in retail: even less.
HRs have a strange aversion to hiring the unemployed: We don't want anyone someone else didn't want no matter what the reason.
As the retail workforce continues to shrink in availability: this attitude will have to change. The recession dumped lots of very qualified people on the market a few years ago but the assumption is they kept the best workers.
Not so: more often they kept the "cheapest" workers to contain payroll costs.
So now its time to top up again. You can bet these Active searchers will indeed find a percentage of these posted roles: if HR will even look at them.
Recruiters therefore don't have a lot of motivation to promote Active job seekers: companies don't pay for what they believe they can obtain themselves.
They get paid to find Passive candidates: those that are reasonably happy at jobs they already have.
Or: the other 92% of the workforce.
Next to none of these workers ever check out a job site of any kind.
(Well let's face it: the 'drop' rate (completing the application process) is huge for online job postings regardless of being an Active seeker or not: something 90%+.)
Corporate jobsites fare only slightly better: around 17% completion.
Why? Mainly because it's so time consuming, confusing and unrewarding. Ever try to go through a Taleo based application? Wow: nightmare of frustration.
At the end of such a process: a candidate is lucky to recieve: Due to the High Volume of Applicants you will ONLY hear from us if..........If you Won the Jobsite Lottery!
Candidates know the success rate for applying online is around 1 in 200-300 chances to be hired.
Candidates know that online applications are nothing more than a lazy HR department attempting to "not be bothered" with most people: to make their own lives easier by getting candidates to pre-qualify themselves.
Thanks for nothing!
Jobsites are nearly entirely ineffective in recruiting anymore. No one wants to play anymore. It's like finding the Cadbury $250,000 Key in your Chocolate Bar..........How many bars do you have to eat to win?
Jobsites can't Sell the Job or the Firm very effectively.
They are nothing more than laundry lists of
WE NEED:........WE WILL TAKE FROM YOU:
If you are:
The most amazing candidate in the world
Can jump every hurdle we have set to exclude most human beings
Work for some anonymous unstated prize of undetermined value
Then maybeeeeeeeeeeeeee...........we will talk to you.
Convince me to hire you!
Right.
Wrong:
Unless time has warped and it's still the 1940s!
Finding candidates is a courtship process no different than finding customers.
People have to be convinced there is value in considering switching loyalties to your firm.
Recruiters need to have something to SELL about your firm: something special.
Not many people are interested in lateral moves for lateral benefits.
But first of all they have to SELL your firms Brand:
the products as well as the reputation.
There has to be a Value Proposition; a reason to RISK changing companies.
If you are coming to the table with the same old HR processes which are notoriously candidate unfriendly:.....
....and the same old compensation packages: called: Prove you are worth this money
....and the same old 3 month evaulation periods of "we will try you out"
....and the same old vacation packages which you usually lose with a job change
....and the same old sweat shop hours
....and worst of all you are offering a lateral career move
...........then what can a recruiter Sell about you? to entice away a candidate from a job and a company they are basically happy with?
Some companies only call in recruiters when their own miserable processes have failed.
Others use them because they really do care about creating the best possible team.
Whatever the scenario: a recruiter has to find ways to package your firm to appeal to the type of candidates you want.
Yup that's right. We have to Sell YOU......sell your brand to candidates.
Recruiting works in reverse to how HR works:
Mr. Candidate: Sell ME..........on reasons we should hire YOU
HR and Recruiting have the same end goal: but use totally different methods.
HR says Sell Me on You!
Recruiters say Sell You to Them!
HR often thinks: Why do I need a recruiter? Aren't we doing the same thing?
Nope.
Recruiters are salespeople: out there selling your brand across the entire pool of retail candidates.
They get paid to sell. Period.
A CHRP type designation counts for nothing in the sales game.
Well is it any different than hiring our own cheaper recruiters?
Yup.
Your own staff recruiters just can't make the intimate relationships with competitors staff: unless they are ready to quit anyway: and are thus actually Active candidates.
Recruiters develop deep data bases of Passive candidates looking to move when the right Story comes along........things they would never confess to a direct competitor.
In house recruiters are basically an extension of HRs already extensive Active candidate recruitment overhead but still can't touch the Passive pool.
There are only two pools of candidates:
8% Active
92% Passive
There has never been an effective way to reach most Passive candidates other than outside Recruiters.
The stats are:
Job boards: 3.6% .............hire rate
Newsprint: 7% ............. hire rate
Random Apps: 7% .............hire rate
Job Fairs: 8% ..............hire rate
Random Walk Ins: 12% .............hire rate
Staff Refer: 12% ............ .hire rate
Corp Job Sites: 17% ..............hire rate
Recruiters: 56% ...............hire rate
HR continues to spend ridiculous amounts of money on methods that are measurable failures:
with the lowest possible Return on Investment........
If they were in Finance or Marketing: they would be fired for such lousy results.
All the while thinking Recruiters "cost too much".........
The only method that costs too much is one that doesn't work!
When you retain a Recruiter:
You are actually retaining a Top Sales Professional.
The better they are at selling your brand: the better hiring results you will have!
Just that simple.
If you don't have something great to sell and someone to sell your brand to candidates:
You will not get the best talent.
